While there is evidence of Russians hacking the DNC, what there is no evidence of is them helping Trump. Basically the whole thing was essentially "uh....LOOK THE RUSSIANS EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO THAT". It reeked of using a foreign "other" to sway politics, the 'otherism' that defined McCarthyism.
I'm also old enough to remember the 2000 election. I'd venture a guess to say my feelings on it are different? I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss, at all. I think it's wrong to blame him for it. If he didn't run, it's likely Gore would have won, but there were a lot of other problems. Gore wasn't a strong candidate for one, and you can blame the SCOTUS a bit as well. In other words, much like all politics, it wasn't a simple 'who's at fault'. Bush was a very strong candidate that year. 2004 was much different, but defeating an incumbent is very hard to do.
A note on defeating incumbents. There is a major difference between an incumbent and and someone trying to be the current position's ideological continuation. In 1988, Bush was the incumbent-lite. He won. Barely. And then lost, because he wasn't a real incumbent. In 2000, the incumbent-lite was Gore, the previous VP. This time, Hillary is in that role. Generally, after an incumbent's term is up, the voting block swings to the other end of the ideological spectrum, electing a conservative person after a liberal person, and a liberal after a conservative. This is all relatives, of course. Bush can be seen as more liberal than Reagan, but Clinton was more liberal than him. So that change DID happen in that election, it just didn't switch parties. And it fed into Clinton's election. Gore, however, was NOT to the right of Clinton. He was to the left. That really hurt his chances of winning. Clinton is to the right of Obama. She will win, and that she is conservative is not a small part of why she'll be elected. However. She will be replaced in her re-election bid by someone more conservative, most likely. There's a chance someone more liberal replaces her, but my money's on a republican at least. If there's a more liberal republican, that person will likely beat her in re-election.
TL:DR the grass is always greener, except when you can't see it. Incumbents are grass you can see, challengers are grass you can't, incumbent-lites are the grass you already have but can't see.